|
wise?
Yes, Greenspan could have raised interest rates. He liked to make his presidents look good and did so for both Clinton and Bush. Even with higher interest rates, the CRA required Freddie and Fannie to make loans available to minorities who couldn't afford them. But yes, it might have at least caused these people requesting loans to rethink if that was wise.
This was not only unwise but just plain stupid, it put the whole system at risk. We should have learned from Johnsons subsidized housing fiasco. Democrats, especially Dodd will have to take a lot of blame for ignoring that. Dodd got a lot of money from fanny/freddy because he was in charge of the committee overseeing them. It is very apparent that until we prevent Congressmen from being bribed by special interests the public will continue to get screwed and the economy will be at risk. The airwaves belong to the public why cant we require the TV stations to provide free air time for politicians? this would dramatically reduce the need for vast amounts of campaign money to get elected. The billion dollars spent by Obama is obscene something must be done to restore credibility to government. |
I take back some of what I said about BO learning from his mistakes. He claimed his stimulus package would limit the loss of jobs and that unemployment would peak at 8% by this fall. It's already at 9.4% and still rising.
His solution? Keep spending money... and faster!!! |
Unemployment?
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Why don't we just break up the country then? Would that be fun? Seeing that white guys are so damn awful. Fuck you Bionca, those evil white guys you like to trash built the civilization that allows you to draw another breath. Where else would you be safe in a country untouched by Western civilization? |
Out of line
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
obama was in germany(dresden) and he is 1000 times better as g.w. bush(i hope so) and ..yes i hate G. W. -.-
..but obama must even SHOW that he's better!.. ;) |
Quote:
Please show me where I "trashed" white guys - Considering that it's only Conservatives that like to threaten the break up of the nation, I'm also a little amused that you would lay that at my feet. |
Quote:
...Let the record show that it was LIBERAL Vermont that went so far as to draft up an official manifesto to actually DO IT and who actually TRIED to put secession up to state vote during the Bush years. Not to mention, back before the current economic recession hit and back when times were better, it was LIBERAL California that once had a strong grassroots movement that likewise advocated doing the same. So, no offense, but it's hardly "only Conservatives" that have become so disgruntled with the opposing side that they would threaten to break up the nation. Just saying' that political door actually swings both ways... |
Quote:
|
secede
When the Bush boys took over, a lot of us "liberals" thought about leaving home and going to Canada. However, on second thought, most of us decided to stick it out even though the family was dysfunctional. Now were not only dysfunctional but broke. "Hey buddy can you paradigm" ;):lol:
|
Quote:
I wasn't aware of Vermont. California can hardly be called a Liberal state. You have the coast which is very Libreral, but San Diego, Sacramento, The OC, the mountains can hardly be called anything close to Liberal. Cali is about as Liberal as Ohio - you have Pelosi, we have Kucinich. |
A serious question here, Was Perry just saying this for disgruntled REPS or does he really think Texas would be better off on their own or would they become part of Mexico? Personily i think he was only throwing some red meat to the core GOP ers in his state for his reelection bid :yes: Jennifer
|
Quote:
It is not the state taking control of banks, markets, finance. That's why there were no provisions in the initial 2 page plan for oversight or accountability. That's also why it was written by a former head of Goldman Sachs. That's what Wall Street is demanding. This isn't socialism. It's the triumph of neoliberal dominance of the state. Rather than the government gaining control of the financial sector, it is the government being held hostage by the financial speculators. The taxpayer being accountable for the excesses of a bullish market with no oversight, no restraint, and absolutely no "self correction". The government was told a story of doom and failures of epic proportions that would have a global reach unseen before. The ones who spear-headed this, who ignored the signs, who tried to bank as much as they could as long as they could did not get "rescued" by the government. They asked and received the assistance from the government. With no stipulations. With no plan to pay it back. With no direction Now that the administration is (slowly) trying to install the means to collect and oversee the dispensaion of the funds... they cry "foul". The blow up over GM's CEO being fired by the people who denamd "responsibility and accountability" is shameful. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Repubs
From Washington Monthly:
LEADERSHIP VOID.... The latest poll from USA Today/Gallup points to some interesting results about the state of the Republican Party. It notes, for example, that "one-third of Republicans now say they have an unfavorable opinion of their party." That's not a good sign. (By contrast, only 4% of Democrats have an unfavorable view of their party.) It's hard to say whether these are Republican moderates who believe the GOP has shifted too far to the right, Republican conservatives who believe the GOP isn't far-right enough, or some combination of the two. Either way, it's a discouraging figure for the party. But just as important were questions about the Republican Party's leadership, which is obviously in an awkward state in the wake of the Bush/Cheney era. A 52% majority of those surveyed couldn't come up with a name when asked to specify "the main person" who speaks for Republicans today. Of those who could, the top response was radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh (13%), followed in order by former vice president Dick Cheney, Arizona Sen. John McCain and former House speaker Newt Gingrich. Former president George W. Bush ranked fifth, at 3%. So the dominant faces of the Republican Party are all men, all white, all conservative and all old enough to join AARP, ranging in age from 58 (Limbaugh) to 72 (McCain). They include some of the country's most strident voices on issues from Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court to President Obama's policies at home and abroad. Two are retired from politics, and one has never been a candidate. The vacuum is only part of the problem. When a party loses power, a leadership void is inevitable and largely unavoidable. That 52% of Americans can't think of the leading GOP voice isn't necessarily awful; I'm a little surprised that number isn't even higher. Well at least Sarah Palin wasn't mentioned. :eek: |
Payback
1 Attachment(s)
Humm, looks like Obama is doing some payback. :frown:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Not to mention that many other polls show that Republicans are now being favored as a voter's choice in 2010 for Congressional seats, to specifically break up the Democratic strangle hold that exists on Capitol Hill right now, and as a way to stop Obama from spending any further and from enacting too many of his "changes you can believe in" (insert hacking, mocking cough here)... |
Quote:
Obama Job Approval....59% State of the Nation.....64% DISSATISFIED. Economic Outlook.......54% GETTING WORSE Consumer Mood..........54% NEGATIVE. Live Evaluation...........45% STRUGGLING Oh, and the latest Rasmussen Poll likewise shows that 45% of the country now wants Obama's economic plan CANCELLED. Huh. Maybe it's just me, but I wouldn't consider any of THAT to be a good sign for the Democrats EITHER. |
Gop?
Quote:
Also, the massive spending is not only scaring the hell out of the Republicans.:frown: Plus Obama is following Bush Doctrine in the Middle East. Growl!:censored: |
Quote:
Not to mention, I LOVE the laugh out loud hypocrisy of the Left on this. Those on the Left will point to something like this article (mind you, with the next elections still a year and half away) and they will be the first to say "You Republicans need to HURRY! You don't have a definite spokesperson or your next candidate yet! Can't you see the click is ticking? TIME is of the essence there!!!!".... ...And yet these will be the SAME people, when hard questions are asked about Obama or fingers pointed at the obvious fuck-ups he's now clearly committing, that will be the first to get defensive and say, "For crying out loud, what's your hurry? He's only been in office for 100 days! Why are you watching the clock so much????" Quote:
|
???
Quote:
She believes man roamed with dinosaurs! (gasp, choke, cough) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Conservative economics - yes Strong foreign policy - yes Protect US sovereignty - yes Fundie Bible thumper - NO is that too much to ask? Apparently it is. |
Quote:
But as his ratings now drop -- to the point, as I noted above, that it's now a LESSER number than the number of people who DON'T like the way he's running the country -- suddenly THEN the polls are total BS and not worth looking at. Or they've been somehow rigged and fixed. Gee, funny how that works... :p |
Rush:
Conservatives see Americans. They see human beings. They see potential. Liberals look at a group of people and they see incompetence, they see people that can't overcome the obstacles of life, they want a government program to help them. So true... |
Agree?
Quote:
|
Quote:
At the risk of throwing harmony back into chaos I have a question for you. Since it seems to be so hard to find a candidate that has all the qualities we like we have to make a choice. Conservative economics Strong foreign policy Protect US sovereignty Fundie Bible thumper or Spread the wealth, socialist type economics Toothless foreign policy and apology tours Illegals welcome -Open border policy Secular government (possibly even muslim since he says we're not a christian nation but does say the US is one of the largest muslim countries in the world) Which way do you compromise and why? |
Conservative?
Quote:
This is what I like. 1- A fiscally responsible pay as you go government (no Reaganomics or Bush BS or Johnson BS, Clinton was better). 2- A reasonably ethical government that encourages thrift and responsibility. 3- A secular government that stays out of religious issues (ie abortion, gay marriage) 4- A government that keeps hands off other countries politics. 5- a government that actively fosters environmental/energy sustainability. 6- a government that carefully regulates capitalism but encourages "free" enterprise. In the good old days we tried to avoid avoid foreign entanglements and we prospered (we made our own stuff). The world has changed (a LOT more people) trade is the name of the game so we have to compete. As long as we keep giving away our productivity to China I don't see how we can afford elaborate welfare/health care programs. We don't have enough people working to support them.:frown: Congress is so beholden to special interests (Dems. and Repubs. alike), I don't see much hope of any positive results. The banks own Congress so what are we to do? We have allowed ourselves to get thoroughly fucked up with materialism (from China). We need to make our own stuff, develop our own energy, and fuck the Chinese and fuck the Arabs.:coupling::yes: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
McCain 1 - Conservative economics 2 - A more ethical government that encourages thrift and responsibility. 3 - Strong foreign policy that includes influencing other countries politics. 4 - a government that carefully regulates capitalism but encourages "free" enterprise. 5 - Fundie Bible thumper 6 - Weak stance against illegal immigration or Obama 1 - Spread the wealth, socialist type economics 2 - Toothless foreign policy and apology tours 3 - Illegals welcome -Open border policy 4 - A secular government that stays out of religious issues (possibly even muslim since he says we're not a christian nation but does say the US is one of the largest muslim countries in the world) 5 - a government that actively fosters environmental/energy sustainability by taking control of car companies and aiming to put coal mining out of business These were our two candidates. I see that each candidate had good points & bad points. I'm wondering why you chose Obama if he violates 1,2,6 and as you're finding out 4 in your list of points? Quote:
As for your comments on losing productivity, special interests and :coupling:ing the Chinese and Arabs, I agree. |
Steve Balmer, CEO of Microsoft on Obama's plans to enact a higher tax on U.S. companies' foreign profits:
Quote:
|
My six points
Tracy,
Nobody will tell me how to do selective quotes so my comments are not synchronized like yours. Re: Randolph's six points I don't particularly agree with your interpretations of my points and how they relate to the two candidates. I think you exaggerate the negative aspects of the Dems. and overly support Repub. views but you are a conservative, right? ;) I used to like McCain, I think he has the best interests of the country at heart. However, He does seem to be somewhat erratic in his thinking. Obama promised an alternative to the mean spirited hegemony obsessed Bush administration. :( Will he come through, it remains to be seen. :cool: Obama is very limited on what he can do, its up to Congress to come up with legislation that Obama can support. :lol: I think you exaggerate Obama's "socialist" tendencies. His massive support of the banks would question that. He has "assured" us that owning GM is temporary. Will the Gov. allow GM to fail when it owns it. :rolleyes: Oh, I was thinking of the Monroe Doctrine as a start. Yes, I know we have rarely minded our own business, Teddy Roosevelt, Woody Wilson, Kennedy, Johnson, Ect. :no: |
Obama will reduce the Republican party to Rush, Newt, Cheney, Hannitty, and O'Reilly for the next eight years. Nothing's going to stop the Democratics except the Natural Disasters that occur during that time. Obama's hand on the Rudder of the US might be the steadiest in it's history. I'm not makin' this shit up, it's going on!
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Answer: that's right, yet again the Left feels it can hit up the so-called "rich" in the country. The only problem is Obama's idea of who is "rich" has once again dropped, and now you're "rich" to him if you're simply a standard middle class family. Which means we're now officially talking about increasing taxes, across the board for everyone, which is certainly a joke in an economic downturn as severe as the one we're enduring. Not to mention, you're talking about sticking a $1 TRILLION health care bill on top of spending $2 TRILLION in stimulus funds, which all by itself was going to raise our debt level to such a staggering number that it will now leave our kids with a $1 TRILLION deficit per year for the next 10 years -- thus putting the United States nearly $13 TRILLION in the hole. Sorry, but I don't care what kind of fuzzy math the Left wants to trot out, there's simply not enough "rich people" to tax and cover THAT kind of debt load. Since the start of the year, like clockwork, weekly unemployment figures continue to roll in at an amazing rate of over 600,000 jobs shed per week. But I loved that last month the Obama White House crowed they "saved" 30,000 jobs. Seriously, think about that. Four weeks in a month times 600,000 per week translates into 2.4 MILLION jobs lost, yet they were so proud they saved 30,000. And now the White House has changed its own language about "creating" jobs to "saving" jobs instead. And topping it off, there are now meetings taking place overseas to discuss dumping the American dollar in favor of creating a new world currency simply because the rest of the world has lost faith in the American dollar, given the sheer amount of money that Obama is trying to spend, borrow, or simply asking the Fed to continually print up so he can spend that money TOO. Sorry, but if this is your idea of the "steadiest hand in history" on the rudder of the U.S economic ship, I would sincerely advise everyone to strap on their life jackets and start heading to the life boats because there's one SERIOUSLY huge motherfucking iceberg ahead. |
life jackets?
We are going to need more than life jackets to survive the relentless give away of our productivity to Japan, Korea, Taiwan and now China. Beginning in the 1960's we have allowed our core production to go overseas (cars, tvs, electronics, computers, tools, ect). How can we afford full health care without lots of blue coller jobs to pay for it? Detroit is dead, GM is dead, Chrysler is dead. Our own corporations have betrayed us by moving their manufacturing overseas and our government has actively encouraged it. We are committing slow suicide and nothing is being done about it. Corporate profits rule, to hell with the country. :frown::censored:
|
Quote:
|
I have not read all the thread so i will just say i think Obama is seen as a positive step forwards to a more peaceful world , i dont think it matters what country you are in .....corporate profits will always screw over the little guys
|
p.s he is very good at killing flies
|
Quote:
|
How can you F:censored: up a country that was all ready F:censored:ed by King George? You can point fingers all you like but this F:censored:ing mess all started under King Georges rain and since his ran the ship straight in to the iceberg he should take the blame plus he controled all three branchs of goverment for his first 6 yrs in which time he did what ever he wanted too and sadly he was allowed to do what ever he wanted for his final two years, He left a big mess to clean up a mess that will take in all likely hood at least 15 yrs to clean up :eek:
|
Sorry Jen, but if you're not going to back up any of your claims then I'm going to have to call BS yet again.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
1. cannot spell 'reign' 2. does not understand the American system, and 3. who calls George W, 'a king' is a true waste of our time... |
Quote:
|
Yeah, Jen is most definitely female. And a hot one at that!
|
two kinds of people
I said it awhile back that this thread is kinda pointless mainly due to the fact that since 01 there are only two types of people those who love W and those who hate W, As for Obama those who love W will hate Obama no matter what he says or does :yes: Jennifer
|
Quote:
Woah... Deja Vu. Is this like Groundhog day or something? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Oversight not withstanding, all your other points are correct.
|
There are a couple of foreign policy developments happening this week. The Iranian post-election uprising, and North Korea both threatening to launch missiles at Hawaii and Alaska and also transporting a ship load of nuclear materials in the pacific.
Obama supporters: How would you think that Obama will, or should handle these events? What should he do now? What should he do if the uprisings in Iran are stopped with deadly force? What should he do if North Korea launches a missile near Hawaii or Alaska? What should he do about the ship load of nuclear materials? |
Quote:
|
Obama Iran
Thia is from Joe Kline at Time
I've been receiving a steady stream of favorable emails from Iranian-Americans regarding my appearance on Larry King last night. They're delighted that I made it clear that Iran is different from the other countries in the region--better educated, more sophisticated, with far greater rights for women (although not nearly enough). And they also appreciated the fact that when King asked me what John McCain should do right now, I said, "Be quiet." The Washington Post has a piece today about the efforts of some Republicans to make hay out of the situation in Iran. McCain, who spent the entire 2008 election making misleading statements about the nature of the Iranian government (I wonder if he still thinks Ahmadinejad is more powerful than the Supreme Leader), has been at the forefront of this. It is very unseemly. I have yet to hear what possible good it would do for the President of the United States to encourage the protesters, except to give the Iranian regime a better excuse for killing more of them. McCain's bleatings are either for domestic political consumption or self-satisfaction, a form of hip-shooting onanism that demonstrates why he would have been a foreign policy disaster had he been elected. To put it as simply as possible, McCain--and his cohorts--are trying to score political points against the President in the midst of an international crisis. It is the sort of behavior that Republicans routinely call "unpatriotic" when Democrats are doing it. I would never question John McCain's patriotism, no matter how misguided his sense of the country's best interests sometimes seems. His behavior has nothing to do with love of country; it has everything to do with love of self. Repubs are just passing the same old shit. :censored: |
Quote:
Second, I always love when news commentators give out their personal opinions (which is fine since that's what they get paid for), BUT THEN they try to back their assertions up with a vague toss-away comment like "You can't believe the number of emails I've been getting from people who agree with me." Well, actually, I DON'T believe it, so how about giving out some actual numbers? What, do you normally get 10 positive emails from readers and this time you got 13, so you see that as a 30% spike -- when in reality you just got 3 extra emails? To be fair, I'm sure he has received some email, but I'm willing to bet good hard cash that he hasn't gotten as much as he makes out since he just wants a quick excuse to say "See? I got mail, so I was right!" Or I'm willing to bet that an even GREATER number of Iranian-Americans are paying NO attention to a boob like Klein, and they are posting away elsewhere online or out marching in protest in complete opposition to his viewpoints. Hell, we just had a big protest rally this weekend in Los Angeles -- and there were others around the country, too -- in support of the Iranians seeking true democratic change. So, here's what I'd love to see. I'd love to see Joe Klein standing up in the middle of one of THOSE crowds and stating his view (and these are his words): "The protesters (in Iran) admire our freedom, but they are appalled -- and insulted -- by our neocolonialist condescension over the past 50 years... They do not believe they live in an Evil Empire. They still support their revolution. They shout "Allahu Akbar" in the streets, which was the rallying cry of 1979. They are proud of their nuclear program, even if many have doubts about the efficacy of weaponizing the enriched uraniam that is being produced." Riiiiiiiiiiiight. They love things the way they are, and they still support the revolution of 30 years ago. Yes, Joe, and I guess that would explain why half the fucking country is out in the streets setting fire to things and standing up to the military demanding change. Hell, even an AP press story noted the other day: "On the streets, witnesses said protesters shouted "Death to Khamenei!" - another sign of once unthinkable challenges to the authority of the successor of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the father of the Islamic Revolution. " But nice to know Joe Klein thinks they're all just having a tiny tiff and we should completely keep our mouths closed and not take any sides. |
Quote:
...BUT THEN you want to turn right around and say "His behavior has nothing to do with love of country; it has everything to do with love of self." No offense, Randolph, but you can't have it both ways. You can't try to sound like the nice guy and say "I respect McCain for his service to his country and I won't question his patriotism", but then instantly stab him in the back and say "He's only doing this for himself." The two statements just don't jive. And for the record, what McCain and many of the Republicans are simply doing is staking the SAME ground that Reagan took against military regimes himself. As others have noted, the best parallel for Iran right now would be Poland during the Reagan years, where the people likewise staged a political revolt because of constantly shitty and corrupt elections. And frankly, I do think Obama is taking the wrong path here, all because he's trying to weasel his way and have it both ways. He's trying to say muddled things, send mixed messages, so that no matter who comes out on top he can then say "See! I was on your side all along." To that end, I respect what Reagan did a helluva lot more, when he basically went on national TV and in a televised speech essentially told the Polish government in no uncertain terms: "Get your shit together and have fair elections and respect the will of the people and let democracy be respected or else the United States will cut you off in a heartbeat. And even after we cut you off, then we'll do whatever we can to repeatedly fuck you over again and again just to ram the point home." Now THAT was a President showing some balls and taking a stand FOR an emerging democratic movement when it needed emotional support the most. For being a former college professor, Obama could certainly learn a few things from the history books. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
So tell me, what do you think Obama should do with regards to Iran and N. Korea? |
Quote:
This is about a change in paradigms, NOT about what would your republican candidate have done differently... Luckily and to your irritation, I'm sure, I've had my chance to explain the concepts first hands with quite a few Americans, and fact is that once they are truly educated about the mechanisms of socialism contra capitalism, they begin to understand that Barack Obama is far from socialism. But he does share a world's care for the reasonability in having a society, where all citizens are equal and none "more equal than others" in their opportunities. I'm speaking to unlistening ears, I'm certain. America has been on the verge of becoming a police-state - as Jesse Ventura said it: Fascism by definition is when corporate money, religious right and government team up to rule as they please. Add to that the former administration's doctrines that allowed them to enter other contries without an explained reason. Iraq is a formiddable example. Barack Obama brings humanism back into the American way again (an old virtue of your own country's history, Tracy) and I feel sad about the backlashing republican rightwingers. But I guess you'll be around for a while. H |
Wow, this seems to be a really hard question for dems to answer. And Hank, you don't seem to have any clue what I'm asking. Just read the question and answer it. There's no hidden agenda to it. I've explained everything I hope to understand from this question.
There's the Iranian post-election uprising and the Iranian government crackdown. And North Korea both threatening to launch missiles at Hawaii and Alaska and also transporting a ship load of nuclear materials in the pacific. Obama supporters: How would you think that Obama will, or should handle these events? What should he do now? What should he do if the uprisings in Iran are stopped with deadly force? (actually, now they are) What should he do if North Korea launches a missile near Hawaii or Alaska? What should he do about the ship load of nuclear materials? If you think BO should do nothing then say he should do nothing. If you think he should respond in some way, then how? I know you feel the need to bring in a favorite GOP punching bag like McCain or Bush, but this has nothing to do with them. Hank, if this is a new paradigm then no need to bring up a republican candidate. I didn't, so why did you? You're still stuck with the old paradigm. It's as simple as this: How should Obama respond? |
Quote:
1. Never argue with anyone who cites Jesse Ventura for his political support. It demonstrates a lack of credibility and lack of intellectual sourcing... 2. Never argue with someone who ignores the question, writes a long winded and unrelated diatribe in response and NEVER addresses the discussion at hand...see point number one... |
What?
Quote:
|
LMAO! I assume you're being facetious. This is very interesting. I've really stumped you guys. There's no Bush or McCain policy you can trash. There's no Obama policy you can blindly support. When your Messiah hasn't spoken yet and you can't blame it on Bush you have no clue what to think about something. Or perhaps you do know what should be done but want to hold back because you're pretty sure BO will botch it and then you would look pretty silly trying to rally behind him. Good stuff... :respect:
|
I think he should stay out of it, After all it's IRAN'S election not ours so step aside and let IRAN sort out there own problem after the dust clears see who's in charge and take it from there :yes: Jennifer
|
Thanks Jen, although by now that one is a safe bet since Obama has done little so far. Now for the tougher one since we're still waiting to see what happens. North Korea. What should be done about their ship full of nuclear materials they're carting around in the Pacific? And what should Obama's response be if North Korea fires more missiles despite Obama's warnings?
And what should his response be if one of those missiles N. Korea launches is aimed towards Hawaii or Alaska? |
The nuclear genie was let out of the bottle a long time ago and once freed it can never be rebottled, N KOREA is beating it's chest talking tough when they should remain silient, He's talking big so you have to keep your cool and hang tough and call his bluff he'll fold as he knows full well we can blow him off the face of the earth which will happen if a nuke hit's the US and any attemp will end in his country being invaded. He can't win so call his bluff :eek: Jennifer
|
Quote:
And, waht of the the Iranian President's [attempted] flattery toward OB [or, was it intended as an insult] when he said OB was acting like his presecessor {George W. Bush} |
Quote:
Quote:
Military casualties could possibly range from 661092 - 1,152,772 U.S. and Allies 4,407,275 - 5,812,075 N. Korea and possibly China. Those are the, "top end" estimates. |
Quote:
A) Try to rally up the UN and convince them to help out with the attack against NK because he is one of those team player types and will want to make it look like a joint effort, rather than a US spearheaded effort like in Iraq. Or B) If a US base in SK or Japan is hit, Zero will have no choice but to invade lest he lose face with alot of Americans. NK will be invaded by a force of US troops, ROK soldiers and Japanese SDF. NK will be able to fuck up Seoul pretty good with their artillery but military bases will be mostly untouched due to the C-RAM systems. Once that first shot is fired though, NK arty will be lit up by SK and American artillery de to the fact that the C-RAMs track rounds once they are in the air and will have a precise fix on their location. NKA mechanized forces will probably come down the Kaesong-Munsan approach and will be met with Javelins, AT-4s, attack choppers and Spectre gunships not to mention whatever mechanized we have. The initial push into South Korea will be massive but short lived. Meanwhile, the coast will be blocked by naval ships and any artillery needed will be provided by 6 inch guns. The noisy NK diesel subs will be dispatched by our nuclear powered ones. Any air to air combat will be an epic fail for KJI's pilots. The subterrainian tunnels that are there and the people inhabitating them will learn firsthand what the words"Daisy Cutter", "BLU-82" and "Thermobaric" have in common. Of the people left standing, we will try to win hearts and minds with MREs. Since KJI felt it was necessary to starve his people so that he can have his ass handed to him, his subjects will be a bit more open to having us there. There might be a resettlement akin to when the Berlin wall came down. Or C) Zero convinces Russia and China to get involved as the Chinese will want to look like the sane older brother compared to North Koreas batshit insane policy. They will also want to keep it hushhush that they were the ones who supplied NK with nuclear materials and the ability to weapoonize them. NK will be split up between China, Russia an South Korea. And in the end, Kim Jong Il won't be so ronery. Sorry if this sounds like gibberish; I'm typing via Ipod touch and Im really sleepy. That and my arguements are mostly based on hearsay, conjecture and groping at straws. ;) |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The obvious first line of defense in Hawaii and/or Alaska are our anti-missile defense systems. BO wants to slash $1.2B from missile defense programs for FY 2010! Who's side is he on? Quote:
Quote:
|
Tracy
Yes that was and still is my opion, Also my opion the middle east has been at war with one enother for thousands of years i say fine you fight it out amongst yourselves and when it's over who ever is left standing give us a call :frown: Jennifer
|
Ok. Fair enough. So if that was democratic foreign policy, who's running the country then? Since that's not the policy now.
|
Quote:
Secondly, the enemy rarely ever follows your plan for him. The Iraqis were almost obsessed with fixed defences. Patton said, "Fixed fortifications are monuments to man's stupidity." The problem for the Iraqis was they seem to have forgotten that they were fighting in the desert. Desert Warfare is always a war of mobility. However, N. Korea is much different. War in N. Korea would be a war of attrition. The N. Korean Army may not have the "nice toys" that we have. They are fairly well equipted, the Chinese have seen to that, because in N. Korea, the Army comes first; all other matters (including starving children) are secondary. Remember you must never underestimate your enemy. Understimation leads to overconfidence, which leads to complacency, which turns into unnecessary casualties. |
White House Press Secretary Harrased by Little Old Lady
What do you think a Town Hall meeting with the president is? Most people would say that's when anyone can come to an open forum and ask questions, any questions, of the president. Not in BO's world where he wants strict control over what is said and what the state run media reports. Chip Reid and none other than ultra-liberal Helen Thomas (she's 89 years old and has been has covering the White House during every presidency since JFK) called White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs out and put him on the hot seat.
Quote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q37kt0ga0OA Afterwards, Helen Thomas said to CBS that not even Richard Nixon tried to control the press the way President Obama is trying to control the press. "Nixon didn't try to do that," Thomas said. "They couldn't control (the media). They didn't try. What the hell do they think we are, puppets?" Thomas said. "They're supposed to stay out of our business. They are our public servants. We pay them." LOL you go girl!!! |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Here's a bottom line truth about politics: a shitty economy and sky high unemployment and people scrambling to simply make their bills is always going to create A LOT of really pissed off people, no matter who you are. Which is a lesson that the anointed one is about to learn. From today's Real Clear Politics... Ohio: Obama Under 50% Approval President Obama's job approval in Ohio has dropped significantly in the last two months, dipping under the 50% mark for the first time, according to a new poll by Quinnipiac University. In the last Quinnipiac poll in Ohio taken in early May, Obama enjoyed a healthy 62% job approval rating, with only 31% disapproving. Today, Obama's job approval stands at 49%, with 44% disapproving - a twenty-five point drop in just eight weeks. Not surprsingly, Obama has seen a corresponding drop among voters' approval of his handling of the economy: two months ago he had a net +21 approval (57/36), today it is -2 (46/48). |
Obama met with Putin today. Putin felt the need to educate Obama about the cold war. He lectured Obama for an hour while BO sat there and listened. What a chump. Oh well... it's not the first time BO has been tutored by a communist.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
1 Attachment(s)
BO is in the process of making our economy worse and is threatening another stimulus package because spending the first $trillion and creating the conditions for hyper-inflation somehow didn't cure our money problems. Well hey, if that didn't work, maybe if he does it again it will work this time.
Now, while threats to the US are growing stronger, he cuts spending on anti-missile weapons while N. Korea openly endeavors to put Hawaii, Alaska and our West Coast within striking distance. After the US wins the Cold War and becomes the lone superpower, he goes to Russia to restore their status as a superpower, and signs an agreement to weaken our defenses to the point that this could actually be a reality. Quote:
BO can suck it |
Quote:
|
Like i said W never did a town hall and since everything he did or said was staged oh yeah the White house also paid reporters to write favorably about no child left behind which was covered on CNN around the time CROSSFIRE was canced and Wolfe got his current show :yes: Jennifer
|
So it's very evident to me that transjen is too biased to accept anything other than her own opinion. to me the bottom line is that Obama is trying to be a dictator and the demo congress and senate is rubber stamping anything he says to do. if this lack of independent thinking continues this wonderful country of ours will be bankrupt, stuck with a socialised med system like the British and the Candians have that is too expensive to maintain and does not meet the individuals needs. do some reasearch on the effectiveness of these systems and make you own opinion.
not enough time is being spent to even read the bills that these idiots are signining as evidenced by the joke speed reader they have that reads these before the congress what a joke our gov't is becomiing. SS is almost broke, the railroads are broke, the US mail system is broke and yet Obama lovers think the Govt can manage helth care. Are they on drugs or something or our their collective heads so far up thier butts that they have turned stupid. Oh yea and put all the cost on the shoulders of anyone that is successful and has made a decent living or has savings and income. Force them to give it away to the lazy folks who are looking for an handout. look it up its the majority of the Obama supporters. notice the congress nor the senate will be under any of these heath care systems being forced on the American people. Reason Obama at the town hall meeting refused to answer the questions concerning if one of his daughters was sick which system would he want to use. that was very telling to those not wearing "rose colored glasses" Obama is going to have to claim ownerships for this mess he has and is creating since GW will have had nothing to do with this crap going forward. I may be a sissygirl but can still think independently |
Quote:
|
I'm not a fan of Obama in the least. I think he's half-baked and immature. Then again, I wasn't a fan of Bush either. It saddens me that America can't find better people to lead our country. I'm almost apathetic at this point when it comes to politics. I mean...I care but I feel like I don't have the power to change things for the better in the political realm.
I don't understand how the TS/TV community can support Obama when he always comes down on the side of the Christian fundie crowd when it comes to LGBT rights. Sure...his rhetoric isn't nearly as dismissive and harsh as his GOP opponents but the end result is always the same. |
Quote:
|
HAIL BUSH, BUSH IS MY GOD HAIL BUSH :censored::censored::censored::censored::censored:
|
Ugh, now she's a Bush fanatic. I guess no matter which way she goes, it's always to the max.
|
Why silly me W was the greatest president ever and no one will ever top him because he was hand picked by GOD to lead us into greatness but those rotten no good DEMS messed everything up and tried to blame poor George for everything and after all W never made a mistake in his life and a lot of people never gave him a fair shot because of 2000, This is RUSH'S reality and it appears to be Tracey's as well so just for you two here's a HAIL BUSHto make you feel better and rember 2012 is just around the corner and prehap just prehaps Jeb Bush can rig another election and we can have another wonderful 8 more Bush years :eek: Jennifer
|
I finally noticed all the action on this thread and the question I have is what is wrong with this country's electoral process that we can't get a good leader into the White House? I think one of the big problems we have is that we really don't know the men we elect as President any more. We have to pick between two images that are produced by massive (read money here) propaganda campaigns that are altered and twisted along the way to fit the polls and surveys. I am not even sure that any rational man would want to be President seeing as the political reality is that to run for the office means to bend over and let the public count the pimples on your ass. Every so often we do elect a moral man who hasen't been totally corrupted by politics in Washington; Pres. Obama and before him, Pres. Carter. And what good does that do us? Very little I'm afraid.
On a sideline here; what about Nostradamus? Did he not predict that we would have an ineffectual leader at this time? |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:45 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright © Trans Ladyboy